Shop at Kohl's, buy your groceries at Whole Foods, drink Pepsi, and read this blog while on a Dell powered by Intel

The EPA has a neat website that shows the top purchasers of green power across the private and public sectors, and also academia. The top 50 rankings are by total green power used for electricity, with Intel coming in at #1, Pepsi at #2, and Kohl's at #3. A lot of companies actually purchase 100% of their electricity from green sources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, or biomass. Dell was #4 overall but purchased a whopping 158% of their electricity needs from green sources, compared to 46% for top ranked Intel. You can also view the top green power purchases by federal or local government. It is good to know that the EPA gets 100% of its electricity from green sources. The DOE, however, only gets 3% of its total electricity from green power, which is pretty sad since they should be leading the way. Let's hope that DOE Secretary Chu does something to change this. Come to think of it, I would hope that the Obama administration sets a precedent by mandating that all electricity used by Federal buildings come from the green energy sources listed above. I am a believer that government can and should use its purchasing muscle to create markets for emerging and socially and environmentally beneficial technologies like clean and green energy. Imagine the impact on our clean tech industry if the federal government mandated that its agencies get 100% of their electricity from green power sources? Imagine if the state and local governments followed suit? That would be huge!

Pittsburgh Councilman's plan to convert all of the city's street lamps to LEDs could save the city of Pittsburgh $3 million annually

Earlier today I received an email from the office of Pittsburgh city councilman Bill Peduto announcing an ambitious plan that will reduce Pittsburgh's carbon footprint while saving the city millions in electricity costs. Peduto, who has been the only city legislator to propose green legislation of any sort over the last few years, wants the city to convert all 40,000 of its street lamps to energy efficient LED lighting. The cost of the program will be around $24 million and will be paid using a combination of the annual costs savings and funding from the state's Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreement. Pittsburgh would join cities such as Austin, Raleigh (home LED manufacturer CREE), and Toronto as major cities who have adopted LED lighting on a large scale. According to Peduto, Pittsburgh would be the largest city in the US to roll out a complete conversion to LED lighting. This would be great news for Pittsburgh's green agenda, especially in light of today's Pittsburgh Penguin's press conference, where they announced the 21 year naming rights deal for their new arena, which will be known as the Clean Coal Center.

Check out this Wikipedia entry to learn more about Light Emitting Diodes.

Below is a copy of the Peduto plan for a bright and green Pittsburgh:

A Bright, Green Idea for Pittsburgh

The Pittsburgh LED Project

Saving Tax Dollars While Saving the Environment

THE PLAN:

Over six months ago, Councilman William Peduto launched a trial of LED lights along the Walnut Street business district. Today, he is submitting a proposal for Pittsburgh to replace all 40,000 existing street lights with 200 Watt LED lights.

THE BENEFITS:

1) Green – Financial

Pittsburgh currently spends $3.2 million each year in electricity costs for our street lights. With the reduction of 137W of energy used by each of the 40,000 lights in the City of Pittsburgh, taxpayers will save $1.92 million per year in energy costs.

Pittsburgh currently spends approximately $1 million each year maintaining our street lights. An HPS bulb has 2 - 4 year life span versus 10 - 15 years for an LED light. Additionally, an LED fixtures burns out one LED at a time, which is in contrast to the current lights HPS lights which completely blow out all at once. This is expected to save taxpayers approximately $700,000/year in maintenance costs.

2) Green - Environmental

A 200W LED light only uses 93W of power. However, the existing 150W High Power Sodium (HPS) bulbs use approximately 230W (includes the ballast) of power. Therefore, over the year, the City of Pittsburgh will save 600 kWh of energy. This translates into 984 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions eliminated by switching all lights to LED.

LED lights turn on and off instantly with no warm up time. The existing HPS bulbs have a slow warm up period that is a waste of energy. Additionally, the existing sodium bulbs contain mercury in the ballasts, LED lights have no mercury.

LED lights produce a white light that stimulates the rods and the cones of our eyes. This creates a higher quality white light, while using less energy than the HPS lights that only stimulate the cones of our eyes and produce a yellow-orange light.

THE COST:

Each LED light costs approximately $500 to purchase. Additionally, it would cost about $100 in labor/light in conversion costs. Therefore, the cost to replace 40,000 lights would be approximately $24 million.

PAYING FOR IT:

With a total cost of $24 million and an annual savings of $2,620,000 upon complete conversion, the City can fully payoff the LED conversion in 10.5 years.

Pennsylvania’s Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreement (GESA) can be utilized to cover the upfront costs of the LED conversion. According to the State, “Projects will be implemented where, through simple-payback analysis, cost savings resulting from energy conservation improvements exceed the associated financing. In other words, these guaranteed savings are used to cover operating budget finance payments over a period not to exceed fifteen years.

NEXT STEPS:

The City should issue a Request for Proposals (RFP’s) immediately requesting that all interested companies provide the City with ten test lights to install throughout business districts in the City for a six month trial (February 1, 2009 – July 31, 2009). During the trial period, measurements should be taken to determine the luminous intensity and the energy produced. Solar powered lights and those with photo-sensitive detectors that lessen the light during dusk and dawn should be included in the trial.

The City should award the contract no later than August 31, 2009, based on required conditions of the RFP process, reliability through trial phase, and long term financial and environmental impact. The contract should require work to begin no later than October 1, 2009 and completed by December 31, 2010.

The City should immediately submit an application with the State through the Guaranteed Energy Savings program.

The City should determine programs we can work with to properly dispose of the existing HPS lights. This could be done through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or a similar program.

Plextronics CEO: "Today’s clean-tech intellectual property is tomorrow’s oil"

Popcity recently published an Op-Ed by Andy Hannah, CEO of Pittsburgh clean tech startup Plextronics. Hannah just returned from the Middle East, where he was on a trade mission with the US Department of Energy. Following his trip Mr. Hannah wrote about what he thinks the incoming administration needs to do to position the United States as the world leader in the clean technology and renewable energy.

The following are Hannah's steps for success:

• Collaborate. Participate with other nations, such as the UAE, where the vision is to be the world leader in energy technology.
• Compete. Establish a competitive platform that “reaches for the moon”. Let’s build a new city that has net zero carbon emissions or overhaul an existing city so that it has net zero carbon emissions. Let’s build a cluster of companies in a city that drives more than half of its economy from the export of energy technology.
• Use our assets. All of our government properties could convert its energy sources from traditional energies to clean and alternative energy technology.
• Win. What are the global visionaries expecting to achieve? Let’s double the ante.There are many efforts already in progress across the United States to establish excellence in clean and renewable energy technology.Sometimes they are loosely connected and most times they are independent in their efforts. As a country of ingenuity, invention and determination we need to harness all of those traits and drive a coordinated, nationwide effort to ensure that America’s clean-tech intellectual property is tomorrow’s oil.

12 Clean technologies make Time Magazine's list of Top 50 Inventions of 2008

Earth2Tech lists the cleantech inventions that made Time's The Best Inventions of the Year list. The Tesla Roadster (pictured) was #2 while GM's Chevy Volt was #7.

Via Earth2Tech, here is the list:

2. The Tesla Roadster: Even though the company has hit a rough patch as of late, the Roadster is an undeniable automotive force that has electrified the industry. We’ll see how long it takes for the Model S to deliver a car to the masses.

7. The Chevy Volt: The range-extended electric offering is a bridge to full-on electric cars. GM hopes that it will also be able to prop up its faltering business. Too bad a slew of competitors are debuting all-electric models the same year.

11. Green Crude: The prospect of making a carbon-neutral crude from biomass that can be refined and transported in the existing oil infrastructure has given birth to a significant number of startups - Sapphire Energy, Aquaflow Bionomic, Live Fuels and Solix Biofuels, to name a few. And now even big players like Dow Chemical, Boeing and UOP are getting in on the action.

21. The Synthetic Organism “Life by design” is Craig Venter’s idea. Being able to build organisms to spec could allow for breakthroughs in medicine and energy. Venter’s Synthetic Genomics is currently working on a microbe, which he says will be ready within the next year, that will eat carbon dioxide and secrete fuel.

25. Thin-Film Solar Panels: Nanosolar has made a lot of headlines with its goal of printing cheap solar panels. A slew of startups, like Xunlight, HelioVolt, OptiSolar and Innovalight, along with larger players like Sharp, LG and Intel, are racing toward the same goal.

31. Einstein’s Fridge: Scientists at Oxford University have resurrected a design for a low-energy refrigerator that Einstein patented in 1930. Instead of harmful freon, the design uses ammonia, butane and water — and a fraction of the energy. It’ll take some tweaking to boost the efficiency, but the researchers say it could work.

33. Biomechanical Energy Harvester: The hustle and bustle of the average day is full of energy, we just need to figure out how to capture that motion. M2E is working on a “battery” that could convert kinetic energy into electrical energy to power military devices or even your cell phone.

35. Airborne Wind Power: The energy of wind is related to the cube of its velocity, meaning faster wind is much more energetic. Those high-speed winds are high up and startups like Makani Power and WindLift are sending kites up to bring the energy down.

37. Smog-Eating Cement: Italian firm Italcementi claims its cement, called TX Active, can eat up nasty smog particles. A number of startups are also working to make cement greener — Hycrete and Arxx have both pulled in big backers for cleaner, greener concrete.

41. The Peraves MonoTracer: With a BMW engine and a look straight out of “Minority Report,” the Peraves MonoTracer is part car, part motorcycle and all about fuel efficiency. The vehicle gets 65 miles to the gallon and can go from 0 to 60 mph in under 5 seconds.

46. Aptera Electric Car: Although its space-age design might put some off, the all-electric Aptera has gotten backing from Google to help bring the three-wheeled vehicle to fruition.

47. Google’s Floating Data Center: Not so much an invention as an awesome idea, Google made waves with a patent filing it made that suggests the idea of a “water-based data center” that floats on a platform and uses “a sea-based electrical generator” and “sea-water cooling units.”

An emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.

"The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet." - Al Gore

If you haven't already read Al Gore's New York Times Op-Ed from the other day titled "The Climate for Change", where the former Vice President shows us his five-part plan that he is recommending to President-Elect Obama and the new Congress. I agree with all five of his recommendations and have followed each of them with my comments, which are in bold.

1. The new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

This is essentially 1/2 the Pickens plan. Notice how Al Gore is not recommending or pushing natural gas vehicles on us. This is a great first step since we will increase the pace of utility-scale solar plants and wind farms if we want to generate 100% of our electricity from carbon free source in 20 or 30 years, let alone the 10 years that Al Gore wants us to shoot for. Vice President Gore does not mention Nuclear Power but I agree with Obama's position which is that Nuclear should be part of the mix as long as we implement safe and secure procedures for storing spent fuel.

2. We should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

Do you know how often our power is out for hours due to your standard thunderstorm? Far too often, and it is due to the updated and dumb electricity grid that spans every corner of our nation. If we are going to invest trillions in new 21st century electricity generation we need a 21st century grid that will deliver that electricity to our door steps and to our electric vehicles, which, if powered by clean electricity, will be the solution that kicks our oil dependency habit.

3. We should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.

Well, any bailout is going to be controversial, but I have to agree with both Al Gore and Tom Friedman, who in his column today, wrote that while we should not give the automakers a blank check but we should consider giving them a bailout with strings attached - as long as those strings insist on the automakers transforming their vehicle fleets to become hybrid electrics:

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

4. We should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

Can we start with Pittsburgh's City County building at 414 Grant Street? It has to be the least energy efficient government buildings in all the land. The effort to retrofit buildings should start with schools and public buildings, and then the federal government should leave it to the individual utilities to manage this program, which will work as long as the utilities are given incentives to reduce their average customer's electricity consumption. California has been doing this for a while now and despite having a growing population and expanding economy over the last twenty years their per capita energy usage has remained flat.

5. The United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.

Do we implement a carbon tax or do we implement a cap and trade system? I've seen good arguments for both sides, and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue since either one would be difficult to achieve politically, not to mention the costs that would be passed on to consumers would be too burdensome on many citizens who are already struggling in today's economy.

One policy initiative that I am in favor of that would fall under a carbon tax is a feebate on vehicle purchases. I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, but I do think individuals should have the freedom to purchase big gas guzzlers - as long as they are adequately paying for the full cost of doing so. That full cost would come to fruition if there was a fee charged to consumers on all purchases of vehicles that are consider gas guzzlers. On the flip side, consumers who choose to purchase fuel efficient vehicles and hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles should be rewarded with incentives such as rebates. This proposal is gaining steam in some states and I expect it to get some consideration at the federal level.

Change we cannot afford to believe in: Sarah Palin chose to protect the oil industry over polar bears!

I've been trying to stay non-partisan on this blog but ever since the general election kicked in to gear it has become harder and harder to out of the fray since energy and environmental policy are two huge issues for this election. After last night's Republican National Convention, where Mayor Rudy Giuliani touted McCain's energy policy with shouts of "Drill drill drill!", I feel compelled to get off the sidelines. John McCain used to be the maverick of his party, as he believes that global warming and climate change are caused by man, and he says that energy independence would be a priority of his administration. However, his pandering to the oil industry and the base of his party, who think that lifting the ban on offshore drilling is the best way to ending our dependence on foreign oil, is just more of the same that we've seen throughout the Bush Cheney years - all talk and no action.

McCain's selection of Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has definitely energized the conservative wing of the Republican party - but what does it say to independent and swing voters who think energy and environmental policy should be at the top of the nation's list of priorities? Sarah Palin is a total reversal of McCain's previous positions on energy and the environment. She believes in drilling in ANWR, she does not believe that climate change is man made. She even went as far as saying that polar bears should not be on the endangered species list because protecting them may "cripple oil and gas development" in parts of Alaska. Here is the full story from this past May; the following is the key snippet on her position:

The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican

.

Thomas Friedman wrote that John McCain's turnaround on environmental issues to appease his party's conservative base leads one to wonder how he can still claim to be the candidate who will put America on the path to energy independence.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

When even George W. Bush has admitted that climate change is a result of human activity, the Republican party's claim that Sarah Palin is a reformer and an agent of change is about as believable as her claim to have been against the poster child of wasteful pork barrel spending, Alaska's "bridge to nowhere."

Minor Storms in Florida lead to "massive power outage"

Florida's highways resemble scenes from the movie "Live Free or Die Hard"


From CNN:

The outage struck shortly after 1 p.m. ET. A strong cold front and scattered thunderstorms moved through the region, including one that prompted a tornado warning for Fort Lauderdale, the National Weather Service reported.

If thunderstorms in Florida can wipe out power for millions of residents and businesses, what would happen if our electricity grid came under a terrorist attack? Isn't it scary that the US economy could get shut down in the blink of an eye if a few key targets were hit?


One of the reasons we have so many problems with our grid is that it has not kept up with the trends of other technologies, such as processing and computing power. Unlike computers today, which used to be centralized, power generation has failed to move towards a more distributed model. Some have put faith in huge batteries and generators for the solutions to our grid's woes, but to me thats not really a fix. My solution for this mess is very similar to something that was invented almost 100 years ago - detachment from the grid. Back in the early 20th century, famous inventor Thomas Edison's house actually ran on a gasoline generator that stored excess or unused electricity in a number of batteries for later use. Edison dubbed this invention the "Edison Twentieth Century Suburban Residence" and a report on it can be found in this 1912 New York Times edition. Unfortunately, sabotage ended Edison's dream of off grid power generation and storage, and also his campaign of electric vehicles against the internal combustion engine.

Today, there are options for homeowners who no longer wish to be slaves to our nation's electricity grid, which seems to be on its last legs. Companies like GridPoint offer appliances for both homes and businesses that work with renewable power sources such as solar and your connection to your utility to bring you a failsafe storage device for powering your home or business. Gridpoint's home storage solution won the endorsement by clean energy advocate and former CIA director James Woolsey, whom I met here in Pittsburgh last month. Mr. Woolsey, who is also an adviser to Gridpoint, told me he had recently purchased a system for his home in suburban DC and was very pleased with the decision as it holds promise to un-tethering all Americans from the grid. Almost 100 years after his invention of the off-grid residence, this would be an accomplishment would Mr. Edison, probably the earliest advocate of energy Independence, could be proud of.

Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers on Carbon Legislation

Over on the Cleantech Blog, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers posted a statement on some of the proposed carbon legislation, specifically, the cap and trade system proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Mark Warner. I think it's great that a CEO of a major coal burning utility steps up and attempts to reach out to the clean tech crowd - but his statement doesn't offer up anything new. Instead, Mr. Rogers pits electricity customers against carbon trader who would stand to profit from the proposed system at the expense of the homeowners, who he says would feel the burden of the costs associated with the Lieberman - Warner legislation. He then goes on to give a number of arguments for coal as a source of electricity generation. Yes, we know we have a 200 something year surprise of the black stuff. No surprises there.

There was one paragraph from his statement where we were in agreement. Many of us have accepted that coal, for now, is a necessarily evil until Nuclear waste storage is figured out and renewable energies such as solar, wind, and geothermal are ready for prime time on a large scale. So, with that said, for now Rogers says the government's carbon legislation should focus on the following.

The goal for carbon legislation should not be to punish utilities for building coal plants to keep the lights on in the past. It should be to create the incentives to put new clean technologies in place for the future – not just clean coal, but also nuclear and renewable energy, natural gas and the “fifth fuel” – energy efficiency.

I'm with the first commenter on that blog post, who stated that he wanted to hear specifics on Duke Energy's commitment to rolling out clean coal technologies, rather than the PR blah blah and coal cheer leading:

I would be interested in hearing your quantifiable commitments to improving the energy efficiency of your company. We are long past the time when a few encouraging words or PR spin in a forum like this would have sufficed. In case you haven't noticed, most of the rest of the world has moved far beyond this.

Breakthrough for Pittsburgh's leading cleantech company

Plextronics just released news that it has achieved a world record for solar power conversion for single layer organic solar cells.

From the press release:

Plextronics, Inc. announced today that its organic photovoltaic technology achieved a world record in the conversion of solar light to power efficiency. The company's result of 5.4 percent establishes a new world record for single layer organic solar cells as certified by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in Golden, Colorado.

This is huge news for not only Plextronics but for Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is behind in the race to build a clean tech economy, but I believe we have a gem here in Plextronics, an early stage developer of printed electronics and thin layer photovoltaic cells, and with its success and the national press coverage Plextronics could very well be in the process of buiding the foundation for Pittsburgh's clean economy.

While I expect this record to be broken, the old record was somewhere around 5.2%, I also expect Plextronics to continue to improve their technology and remain one of the leading developers of these thin layer solar cells. I'll post again as I learn more on their progress.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a tremendous underachiever when it comes to wind power

Contrary to what Governor Rendell and the press would have you believe, Pennsylvania needs to get its act together on wind power production. I've spent some time doing some research on the wind power installations in PA, the wind projects currently under construction, and the potential for wind power here in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is currently generation roughly 3.5% of their potential, and when current wind installations are completed that figure will climb to a measly 5.7%. Of all renewable sources, wind power is the most cost competitive with conventional electricity sources. So what gives? The key suspects are corporate interests groups for the coal and electric industries. These groups have zero motivation to have the state move towards more renewable power sources, even a state and/or federal mandate for renewable energy production gives these companies 20 or more years until they have to act. Until we get leaders in Harrisburg who put our health and well being over the corporate interests, expect to see our state reach its wind energy potential 30 years from now.


PA Wind Power Summary:

Total installed = 179 MW
Under construction = 115 MW*

PA's Wind Energy Potential:
Average Power Output (MW): 5,120
Annual kWh: 45 Billion
Rank in US: 22nd

source: American Wind Energy Association



As you can see by the graphic below, PA is doing good when compared to other states that are not doing much with wind, but Pennsylvania is far behind the renewable energy leaders California and Texas. PA is currently contributing to 1.4% of the total wind power output of the United States, which is pretty sorry when you read reports stating that our state alone contributes around one percent of the world wide emissions that are the cause of global warming. I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but I want our political leaders to stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes when they are touting Pennsylvania's green standing. We are a dirty state. We are getting better but there is a lot of work to do so let's get on it.

US Wind Power Production by State, as of June 2007




Click here for a detailed map of Pennsylvania's wind potential

Book Review: The Clean Tech Revolution

The Clean Tech Revolution is a book that covers the most dramatic industrial shift in more than a century. This book is authored by members of the clean tech consultancy, Clean Edge, and I highly recommended it to anyone looking to learn about the past, present, and future of clean technology, as well as learning about the companies and cities that are the leaders of this emerging industry.


Here are some of the highlights:

• Audience - The book is great read for anyone who is a potential stakeholder - entrepreneurs, consumers, investors, government officials, and executives will all learn something new after reading this.
  
• Organized for easy reference - The book was well organized - anyone looking to learn about one or two particular technologies can jump around to a chapter on the technology they are looking for as the book has individual chapters on wind, solar, biofuels, transportation, green building, the grid, and more.
• "Ten to Watch" - Each chapter has a list of the company's that are leading that sector - the company names can be found at the Clean Tech Revolution blog.
  
• Clean Tech Cities - There is an entire chapter dedicated to developing cities and regions to become clean tech hubs, and like the technology chapters there is a list of the leading clean tech cities. I am hoping we here in Pittsburgh can someday learn how to emulate some of the cities that made the list. Portland and Austin come to mind.
  
• Marketing Clean Tech - The do's and don't's for marketing these technologies. There are decades worth of case studies of flawed marketing of solar and other environmental friendly technologies.
• Verdict - Definitely a great book for you if you are reading this here blog. I would recommend this book to anyone wanting a broad sweeping overview or reference book of the industry. There are several good books available that are more focused on particular industries like oil, electricity, solar, and even green business. I will be reviewing a few of these in the upcoming months.
  

Some other things to note: It was nice to read that the authors of the book were in agreement with a lot of the things I have posted on here, particularly my position against corn based ethanol. I also agree with the authors that shifting subsidies from "entrenched" conventional energy companies to those producing renewable energies would be the easiest way to support further growth and adaptation of renewables, and I agree with them that sin taxes are another sensible way to fund these initiatives.

Green Collar Jobs

The John Edwards Presidential campaign recently unveiled an ambitious plan for 1 million new jobs in the clean tech sector. The cleverly dubbed "Green Collar" jobs moniker is not only good marketing, it is a very promising initiative with a high probability of success - as long as the investments and subsidies for these new jobs go to the right sectors and the right people.

Here are a few of the things I like about the Green Collar jobs plan:

• The plan will build a broader manufacturing base for clean tech in the US
• The plan would create job certifications which means there will be an available pool of qualified installers for those wanting solar and even wind power on their properties. This is huge as the current demand for consultants and installers far outstrips the supply
• The job training plan will involve high schools and community colleges - this is good because it builds awareness on clean tech and global warmer at an earlier stage. Most four year colleges and universities haven't even begun to scratch the surface on this issue!
• National 25% renewable electricity - this is a good start
• Funding of the plan comes from Edwards proposed $10 billion New Economy Energy Fund which is funded by the auctioning of greenhouse gas pollution permits and the repealing of oil subsidies. I like this because it is sort of like a sin tax - make the big polluters who refuse to change pay big time for their mess

As for what I don't like, it is still too early to tell. Although I don't agree with Edwards on certain issues, like his proposal to raise income taxes on the rich - those who make more than $200k per year, (people making $200k in NY are not rich!) I want to give him a chance on this because I agree with him that this is the first real proposal from a Presidential Candidate, and it is a very aggressive one that combines solving the climate change problem with creating 150,000 new jobs per year.

Here are some youtube clips of Edwards interviews on the Green Collar initiative.

Follow Zee Germans

Germany's environment minister (do we have one of those?) announced today that the country would aim for the ambitious goal of having 45% of its electricity supplied by renewable sources. Germany is well on its way of reaching that goal as well as the target for 2020 which is currently 20% of electricity from renewables such as wind and solar. The nation has already passed its 2010 target which was set at 12.5% back in 2000.

Wow. Talk about leading the way in the race for energy independence. This is one arms race I am all for. Let's hope our leaders - and their counterparts in China - view this decision by Germany as a challenge. We can barely raise fuel efficiency standards above 30 mpg by 2020 but a green president in the oval office is all it takes to change that. I am hoping that the green economic boom and resulting economies of scale result in cheaper clean electricity but it is also going to take leadership at the top to stifle the auto and oil industry lobbying machines to reach the challenge thrown down by Germany.